In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of

Question

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made no real economic contribution to the family, there was no liability for damages. In contrast, less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three-year-old sued in New York for accidental-death damages and won an award of $750,000.

The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book,  Pricing the Priceless Child . During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept of the “useful” child who contributed to the family economy gave way gradually to the present-day notion of the “useless” child who, though producing no income for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet considered emotionally “priceless.” Well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’s, this new view of childhood spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws predicated in part on the assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo.

For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex. The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy, the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality, and the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty) were all factors critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth. Yet “expulsion of children from the ‘cash nexus,’ although clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures,” Zelizer maintains, “was also part of a cultural process ‘of sacralization’ of children’s lives.” Protecting children from the crass business world became enormously important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.

In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their “exchange” or “surrender” value on the market, that is, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater.   1 
 1. It can be inferred from the passage that accidental-death damage awards in America during the nineteenth century tended to be based principally on the

(A) earnings of the person at time of death
(B) wealth of the party causing the death
(C) degree of culpability of the party causing the death
(D) amount of money that had been spent on the person killed
(E) amount of suffering endured by the family of the person killed

2 
 2. It can be inferred from the passage that in the early 1800’s children were generally regarded by their families as individuals who

(A) needed enormous amounts of security and affection
(B) required constant supervision while working
(C) were important to the economic well-being of a family
(D) were unsuited to spending long hours in school
(E) were financial burdens assumed for the good of society

3 
 3. Which of the following alternative explanations of the change in the cash value of children would be most likely to be put forward by sociological economists as they are described in the passage?

(A) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because parents began to increase their emotional investment in the upbringing of their children.
(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
(C) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because the spread of humanitarian ideals resulted in a wholesale reappraisal of the worth of an individual.
(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.
(E) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in accidental death cases.

4 
 4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) review the literature in a new academic sub-field
(B) present the central thesis of a recent book
(C) contrast two approaches to analyzing historical change
(D) refute a traditional explanation of a social phenomenon
(E) encourage further work on a neglected historical topic

5 
 5. It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following statements was true of American families over the course of the nineteenth century?

(A) The average size of families grew considerably.
(B) The percentage of families involved in industrial work declined dramatically.
(C) Family members became more emotionally bonded to one another.
(D) Family members spent an increasing amount of time working with each other.
(E) Family members became more economically dependent on each other.

6 
 6. Zelizer refers to all of the following as important influences in changing the assessment of children’s worth EXCEPT changes in

(A) the mortality rate
(B) the nature of industry
(C) the nature of the family
(D) attitudes toward reform movements
(E) attitudes toward the marketplace

7 
 7. Which of the following would be most consistent with the practices of sociological economics as these practices are described in the passage?

(A) Arguing that most health-care professionals enter the field because they believe it to be the most socially useful of any occupation
(B) Arguing that most college students choose majors that they believe will lead to the most highly paid jobs available to them
(C) Arguing that most decisions about marriage and divorce are based on rational assessments of the likelihood that each partner will remain committed to the relationship
(D) Analyzing changes in the number of people enrolled in colleges and universities as a function of changes in the economic health of these institutions
(E) Analyzing changes in the ages at which people get married as a function of a change in the average number of years that young people have lived away from their parents

Question 1: 
A is the best answer. In the first paragraph, the author cites an accidental-death case from nineteenth-century America in which the absence of economic contribution on the part of a deceased child was ruled sufficient grounds to deny the awarding of damages to the child’s parents. The author goes on to discuss how this case typified attitudes that persisted even into the twentieth
century. It can be inferred from this that in nineteenth-century America the chief consideration in determining damages in an accidental-death case was the deceased person’s earnings.
There are no evidence in the passage to suggest that the factors in B, C, D and E were of primary concern in determining accidental-death damages in nineteenth-century America.

Question 2:

C is the best answer.
In the second paragraph, the author describes how during the nineteenth century the concept of the “ ‘useful’ child who contributed to the family economy” (lines 23-24) gradually gave way to the present-day notion of the economically “useless” but emotionally “priceless” child. This new view of childhood was “well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the
mid-1800’s” and “spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries” (lines 31-38). Thus in the early 1800’s, prior to the shift in the valuation of children, families valued the role children had to play in the family’s economic well-being.
A and E describe attitude more in accord with the present-day view of childhood. B and D address issues that are not raised in the passage.

Question 3:

B is the best answer.
According to the author, practitioners of the new “sociological economics” explain sociological phenomena “solely in terms of their economic determinants” and “tend to view all human behavior as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain’ (lines 85-98). This choice provides just such an economic explanation for the nineteenth-century rise in the cash
value of children.
A paraphrases Zelizer’s own explanation, which is at odds with that of the sociological economists.
C uses social values and emotional factors to explain an even broader revaluation of individual worth. D uses an economic argument to explain the change, but here the economic factors at work are the result of a change. E provides a legal explanation for the change.

Question 4:

B is the best answer.
In the first paragraph, the author contrasts two incidents that are said to exemplify the transformation in social values that forms the subject of Zelizer’s book. The second and third paragraphs consist of a brief history of that transformation, as Zelizer presents it, and an account of the factors she considers important in bringing it about. In the last paragraph, the author explains how Zelizer’s thesis differs from that of sociological economists. Thus, the passage serves primarily to present the central thesis of Zelizer’s book.
A and E misrepresent the subject matter of the passage. D mispresents the author’s approach. C is incorrect because although the passage does contrast two approaches, this contrast takes place only in the final paragraph.

Question 5:

C is the best answer.
In the third paragraph, the author cites Zelizer’s contention that the new view of childhood that developed in nineteenth-century America was due in part to “the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty)”(lines 54-58). From this it can be inferred that the emotional bonds between family members became increasingly important during this period.
There are no information in the passage to support the other answer choices.

Question 6:

D is the best answer.
Although reform movements are mentioned in lines 39-45, the passage does not discuss attitudes or changes in attitudes toward those movements. This choice is therefore NOT among the influences Zelizer is said to regard as important in changing the assessment of children’s worth.
A, B and C are mentioned in lines 48-58 as factors Zelizer regards as “critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth”. E is mentioned in lines 70-80, which describe how the “sacralization” of children’s lives represented “a way of resisting what they <middle-class Americans> perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.”

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Sorry, I'm late to the party yet again, and I think  VeritasKarishma  already covered this really, really nicely. But just in case my two cents help somebody...

Question #3 asks which answer choice would likely be put forward by the "sociological economists" discussed in the passage. In the last paragraph, we learn that these economists "tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing  economic gain ." This is contrasted with Zizeler's view, which emphasizes instead "the power of  social values  to transform price."

Let's first take a look at answer choice (B):
 
This answer choice directly ties the rising cash value of children to the "principle of maximizing economic gain." As their expected lifetime earnings increase, so does their cash value. This purely economic view of the value of children is right in line with the beliefs of the sociological economists. (B) is the correct answer.

Now look at (D):
 
On a surface level, this answer choice also seems to emphasize economic factors to explain the increase in the value of children -- supply of child labor decreased, so the cost of that labor increased.

However, (D) identifies another factor as the root cause of this economic situation: "compulsory education laws." Remember, sociological economists believe that  all  human behavior tends to be directed by the desire to maximize economic gain. So, from their perspective, the "compulsory education laws" must also have been put into place in order to maximize economic gain! There is just no evidence to suggest that this is true -- if anything, it is more likely that these laws were a result of changing social values, which in turn would increase the price of the remaining available child labor. This is more in line with Zelizer's argument  against  the sociological economists' views. (D) is out.

I hope that helps!

AkshayKS21 · Answer

If you notice, all options start with "the cash value rose because...". So we just need to find what sociological economists would argue caused the rise in cash value of children.
 This is what passage says :
 
- sociological economics allow only a  small role for cultural forces  in the form of individual “preferences,” 
- these sociologists tend to view  all  human behaviors as directed  primarily  by the principle of  maximizing economic gain.

sociological economist don't give a damn about cultural influences playing a part n change in ash value of children. Sociological economists believe that cash value of children rose just because these children could be used to maximise economic gain, i.e. extra income for the family, over their lifetime.

Lets see the options:

(A) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because parents began to increase their emotional investment in the upbringing of their children.
 This is complete opposite. Moreover if we look closely, this view is held by Zelizer.

(B) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because their expected earnings over the course of a lifetime increased greatly.
 Only answer tying "economic gain" to the children. Their value increased because the expected earnings increased.

(C) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because the spread of humanitarian ideals resulted in a wholesale reappraisal of the worth of an individual.
 humanitarian ideals (social ideals) reslted in a wholesale re-appraisal? We don't know whether it happened wholesale (one time reappraisal) or gradually. Moreover, no mention of this in sociological economists' discussion

(D) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because compulsory education laws reduced the supply, and thus raised the costs, of available child labor.
 This answer "economic gain" to children but in "effect" of another cause-which is not mentioned (or mentioned elsewhere) in the passage. This answer combines two parts of the passage incorrectly.

(E) The cash value of children rose during the nineteenth century because of changes in the way negligence law assessed damages in accidental death cases.
 Purely out of scope, isnt' it?

Does it make sense?

sayan640 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja 
In question 3 , why is option D incorrect and option B the correct answer ?

KarishmaB · Answer

The cash value of children (without making any economic contribution) increased from 0 to 750k. 
How would the sociological economists, who analyse sociological topics solely in terms of their economic determinants, explain this?

The children had made no economic contribution in either case but still their cash value increased. We know that there had been a "gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy,". Also, "reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory education laws". So children did not have much monetary value. 
Hence, their value in monetary terms could have increased because of their expected income increasing. Option (B) is a possible explanation.

Option (D) is not correct. Children's productive value was anyway reducing due to maturing economy. Also, there were child labour regulations brought into place. So child labour was becoming irrelevant. Only adults were providing the economic value. Hence, money offered for the 3 year old's death would not be because of the money he would bring in through child labour.

sayan640 · Answer

Thanks  VeritasKarishma  
Can you please explain how option D is correct in Question #6 ?
If people had not responded positively towards the reform movements and had not considered child labor as taboo , I don't think it would have caused changes in the assessment of children's worth.
Can you please throw some light ?

KarishmaB · Answer

Focus on the question: Zelizer refers to all of the following as important influences in changing ...

We need to find the option that Zelizer did not mention. Zelizer refers to the other 4 options explicitly.

(A) the mortality rate
the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality,

(B) the nature of industry
The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy... clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures ...

(C) the nature of the family
the development of the companionate family

(E) attitudes toward the marketplace
this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.

AG95 · Answer

Please can someone tell why option E is wrong in Question 2 
and option D is wrong in Question 4

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 2 
Question #2 asks about the generally held view of children in the  early 1800's . Let's look at the most relevant piece of the passage:
 
From this, we know that families in the early 1800's generally viewed children as useful contributors to the family economy.

Take another look at (E):
 
From the passage, it is clear that families in the early 1800's regarded children as  useful contributors , not as burdens. In addition, these children contributed to the " family  economy," not to society as a whole.

Eliminate (E) for question #2.

Question 4 
To understand the primary purpose of the passage, let's see what the author accomplishes with each paragraph:
   Paragraph 1: contrasts the results of a court case from 1896 and one from 1979 
  Paragraph 2: states that the "social values implicit" in this contrast are the focus of Viviana Zelizer's book, and then summarizes her main argument about how societal views on children changed during this time period 
   Paragraph 3: explains Zelizer's beliefs about the origins of the transformation in question 
 Paragraph 4: provides an alternate viewpoint (that of “sociological economics,”), and then explains Zelizer's position against this viewpoint

Overall, the author's purpose is to explore various aspects of the arguments in Viviana Zelizer's work.

The alternate viewpoint that Zelizer refutes in Paragraph 4 is that of "the  new  'sociological economics.'" Because this viewpoint is described as "new," is is definitely not a " traditional  explanation of a social phenomenon." So, refuting a traditional explanation cannot be the primary purpose of the passage. (D) is out.

The purpose of the passage is to explore the arguments made by Viviana Zelizer in her book  Pricing the Priceless Child.  (B) is the correct answer to question #4.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 5 
 
We'll have to eliminate every choice that CANNOT be inferred from the passage, and keep the answer choice that IS supported by the passage.

There's no evidence to support this statement, because the author never discusses the  size  of families during this time period. Eliminate (A).

While the author describes how children were removed from the labor pool, the author never tells us anything about the rate of families involved in industrial work. Eliminate (B).

The third paragraph tells us explicitly that "the development of the companionate family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty)" was a critical factor in changing the assessment of children's worth during this time period.

That's why we keep (C) and keep going.

There's no evidence to support this. The author never discusses  how much time  family members spent working with each other during this time period.

Perhaps the passage hints that children became more dependent on parents during this time, but that's just one type of relationship within the family structure. Choice (E) states that family members, overall, became more economically dependent on each other — and the author doesn't say anything of the sort. Eliminate (E).

(C) is the only answer supported by the passage.

Mizar18 · Answer

Dear  GMATNinja

Can you please give the explanation for question 6)?

PoojanB · Answer

hi  Mizar18 , Here is my 2 cents on ur question. All of the factors except option D are mentioned in Para-3. I am highlighting those lines.
 The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a  maturing industrial economy (option B),  the decline in birth and death rates,  especially in child mortality(Option-A),  and the development of the companionate family(Option-C-the nature of family)

important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization  was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption of human values by the marketplace.(option-e - attitude towards market place)

6. Zelizer refers to all of the following as important influences in changing the assessment of children’s worth EXCEPT changes in

(A) the mortality rate - 
(B) the nature of industry
(C) the nature of the family
(D) attitudes toward reform movements
(E) attitudes toward the marketplace

HOPE THIS SOLVES YOUR QUERY

800Dreamer · Answer

In 2nd Paragraph, reformers did something about child labor. Isn't that an important influence in changing the assessment of children’s worth? By reading this I thought some reform movements would have been there and hence I did not consider B wrong.

GMATNinja · Answer

I'm not quite sure I follow what you're having trouble with, but I'll do my best.

The question asks us which answer choice was NOT referred to by Zelizer as an important influence in changing the assessment of children's worth.

The purpose of paragraph three is to identify factors that Zelizer believed to be the origins of this transformation (especially the sacralization of children's lives). We can eliminate (B) because in that paragraph, one of the factors listed is "the gradual erosion of children's productive value  in a maturing industrial economy ."

You've also mentioned paragraph 2. The purpose of this paragraph is to articulate Zelizer's overall argument — that the concept of the "useful" child gave way gradually to the present-day notion of the "useless" and "priceless" child.

Paragraph 2 describes a  result  of this change: increased regulation introduced by reformers.

Paragraph 3 describes the  reasons  for such reforms.

Since we were asked to confirm which answer choice is NOT one of Zelizer's stated reasons for the reforms, it would be circular to consider the reforms themselves as one of those reasons.

Again, I'm not sure this addresses your doubt, but I hope it helps clarify the meaning of the passage as written (and what the question is asking us to do).

parth2424 · Answer

Hi GMATNinja can you please explain q1 . if in 1979 the parents won an award for the death of a 3 year old then how can the principal for giving awrds be choice a ?? how can a 3 year old contribute to the family

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 1 
 
The nineteenth century would actually refer to the 1800s. So, while it is a bit confusing, the 1979 suit took place in the twentieth century, and the 1896 suit took place in the nineteenth century.

With that in mind, take another look at question 1, and see if that clears anything up!

krittapat · Answer

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma  
Could you please help explain why question 4 option C is incorrect?
I thought there were 2 views being contrasted.

KarishmaB · Answer

Paragraph 1: In 1896, children had no economical value. In 1976, a child had an economical value of $750k.

Paragraph 2: The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent book, Pricing the Priceless Child. During the nineteenth century, she argues, the concept of the “useful” child ...

Paragraph 3: For Zelizer the origins of this transformation were many and complex...

Paragraph 4: In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with practitioners of the new “sociological economics,” ...

The passage talks about what Zelizer explains in her book and how.

4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) review the literature in a new academic sub-field
Only one book is discussed.

(B) present the central thesis of a recent book
This is correct. The passage gives the central thesis of "Pricing the Priceless Child".

(C) contrast two approaches to analyzing historical change
Not correct. Only Zelizer's approach to analysing historical change (how the economically 0 value child became priceless) is discussed. 
 krittapat

Answer (B)

krittapat · Answer

I think I answered C because I was contrasting Zelier's approach to sociological economist's. 
Aren't these 2 approaches considered the 2 different approaches to analyzing historical change?
 GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma

KarishmaB · Answer

But we are not given what the sociological economists say about "historical change" in the value of child. Their analysis on this change is not mentioned. We only know that they believe that price affects behaviour. Zelizer suggests that its the opposite - social values affect price and that is how she explains the change in value.

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

In 1896 a Georgia couple suing for damages in the accidental death of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards